DIDACTICAL CONCEPTUAL STRUCTURES IN EXTENDING THE TRIAD TO

THE TETRAHEDRON WITH APPLICATIONS IN CONIC SECTIONS

(1)
CLEMENT AYAREBILLA ALI (JUNIOR SCIENTIST)

EMAIL: ayarebilla@yahoo.com TELEPHONE: +233208554016

(2)
PROF ERNEST KOFI DAVIS, PHD
(3)
DR. DOUGLAS DARKO AGYEI
(1)
DEPARTMENT OF BASIC EDUCATION, FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL

STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION, WINNEBA, GHANA

(2)(3)
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE

EDUCATION, FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION,

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST, CAPE COAST, GHANA

ABSTRACT

The study integrated digital technology software tools to provide competency-based training

in mathematical activities within interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches during

classroom interactions. The methodology explored mixed method and quasi-experimental

designs to collect and analyze data in Conic Sections with student teachers of the Department

of Basic Education of the University of Education in Ghana. The findings discussed the

interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary theoretical frameworks, and modelled under the

conceptual professional action competence for the teaching and learning of Conic Sections.

Recommendations sort to provide best practices in mathematical didactics to improve upon

mathematics performance in Ghana.

Keywords: conic sections; conceptual structures; competence-based training

INTRODUCTION

1
Research (Sabra, Emprin, Connan & Jourdain, 2014; Vu-Minh, Boileau & Herbst, 2015; Van

den Heuvel-Panhuizen, et. al., 2016) indicates that human activities are complex phenomena,

socially situated, built on human subjects (i.e. teachers and students), fostered by objects (i.e.

mathematics activities and classroom lessons), and mediated by tools and instruments (i.e.

digital technology software tools) in an interactive milieu. This makes the evolution of

artefacts tools into instruments and the building up of utilization schemes in the emergence

and developments of digital technology the bedrock of classroom tools for conceptualizing

instrumentation and instrumentalization processes developing principles and practices for

competency-based learning environments.

Research (Bartolini Bussi & Mariotti, 2008; Mariotti & Maracci, 2009; Trouche, 2014;

Radford & Sabena, 2015) also differentiates between tools as artefacts for solving

mathematics tasks from instruments for building conceptual structures with utilization

schemes that are born of the subjects and the objects, where teachers roles have been

modified to accomplishing specific utilization schemes, re-formulating mediation tools and

applying instruments. The discourses of introducing instruments (i.e. digital technology tools)

shape the mathematics tasks, and continuously being shaped by their interactions with

teachers, students and mathematics content. In the discourses, digital technology tools

involve process artefacts and tools into instruments as psychological constructs, integrate

instruments into utilization schemes, and provide bases for incorporating cognitive and

epistemological spheres construct competence-based learning within the framework of

instrumental genesis.

Theory of Instrumental Genesis

2
The theory of instrumental genesis integrates artifacts (i.e. man-made objects) into

instruments (i.e. psychological constructs) by redefining instruments as the formation of

artifacts that emerge from situations and situated instrumented activities with digital

technology tools to transform specific mathematical tasks (Leung, Chan & Lopez-Real, 2006;

Maschietto & Trouche, 2011; Lewis, 2015). This boosts the constructions of complex

didactical conceptual structures within Vygotskian and Piagetian perspectives to guide the

ways artefacts are being used by teachers (i.e. instrumentalization) and the ways artefacts are

being by students (i.e. instrumentation). In this case, instrumental genesis introduces the new

intermediary psychological objects and mediation artifacts (i.e. calculators, computers, and

non-material cognitive tools) to solve mathematics tasks.

Rabardel (Drijvers & Trouche, 2008; Billington, 2010; Fiorani, 2012; Hirsch, 2014; Trouche,

2014) differentiations between the concepts of instrumentation of instruments and

instrumentalization of artifacts defines instrumentation as the knowledge of all the

potentialities and applications of the instruments linked to the utilization schemes, and

instrumentalization as the discovering of the elements and qualities of the artefacts. While

instrumentation intertwines utilization schemes, pedagogical technical knowledge and

domain specific mathematical knowledge (e.g. Conic Sections) with the schemes and

techniques, instrumentalization transforms the artefacts and tools through experimentation,

social engagement and recontextualisation into digital technology tools. These actions of

artefacts over the subjects and associated usage schemes (i.e. instrumentation), and the

actions of subjects over the artefacts and associated usages with instrumented schemes

(instrumentalization) call for strong and valid instructional design model for competence-

based teaching and learning of mathematics.

Instructional Design Model for Competence-based Teaching and learning

3
Traditionally, competency is explained as the ability to perform task at the workplace and the

collection of knowledge, attitudes and skills, which are relevant to the specified job. While

competency is generic and basic to all subjects, is very narrow and limited in scope and

content. The professional action competence model, adjudged as self-dependent and flexible

was is specially designed to achieve maximum knowledge, attitudes and skills in didactical

conceptual structures in extending the triad to the tetrahedron with applications in conic

sections within the framework of instrumental genesis (Tippelt & Amoros, 2003; Ali &

Akayuure, 2014; Tippelt & Amoros, 2016).

Methodological
Competence Personal
Competence

Professional Action
Competence

Technical
Social Competence
Competence

Figure 1: Professional Action Competence Model (Credit: Tippelt & Amoros, 2016)

Figure 1 displays the instructional design model for competence-based teaching and learning.

The different integrated components of the professional action competencies are

methodological, personal, social and technical. The technical competency explains the

knowledge and skills required to carryout activities and tasks in professionally competent

manner. The methodological competency explains the ability to respond with appropriate

procedures in order to react competently to either existing or new situations, and find

solutions independently. The social competency refers to the communication and

collaborations with subjects to competently demonstrate teamwork, interpersonal

4
relationships and respect for authority. The personal competency explains the components of

attitudes that competently practise reflection, improvements, behaviour and planning (Tippelt

& Amoros, 2003; Hellwig, 2005; Ali & Akayuure, 2014; Tippelt & Amoros, 2016). This

model ensures that didactical conceptual structures in extending the triad to the tetrahedron

with applications in conic sections are applied holistically in an integrated manner to perform

the tasks in the classroom, learning and assessment are holistic and integrated, several

competence elements required are brought together, appropriate sequences of learning and

scaffolds are systematic acquisition, artefacts and digital technology tools, support the

development of the model, and answer the following questions:

1. Are there statistically significant differences in the professional action competency model?

2. Why does the professional action competence model improve learning?

METHODOLOGY

Figure 3: Mixed Methods Sequential Explanatory Design (Credit: Creswell, 2014)

The mixed methods sequential explanatory design addressed the didactical conceptual

structures required in extending the triad to the tetrahedron with applications in conic sections

with the four components of competency-based training of professional action competency-based

model. The design involved collecting qualitative data after a quantitative phase in order to

explain and follow up the quantitative outcomes. In the first quantitative phase, test

instruments were conducted with student teachers at the Department of Basic Education,

University of Education, Winneba to examine their competencies in instrumentation and

instrumentalization processes that explain why gender, computer experience, level of student

5
teachers and number of days in learning computing (i.e. independent variables) influence

significantly their competency-based training in the didactical conceptual structures required in

extending the triad to the tetrahedron with applications in conic sections (i.e. dependent

variables). The second qualitative phase conducted an interview with five student teachers to

explain the possible reasons for the results of the test of significances in order to build upon

the quantitative results.

Out of a total population of 75 sandwich student teachers, the study sampled 45, 49% female

and 51% male. In terms of levels of students, 40% were level 300, 31% level 400, and 29%

other students in the department. In terms of experience with computer, 40% were three

years, 31% four years, 21% five years and 0.04% over five years.

On the quantitative analysis, since the data contains four categorical independent variables

and sixteen continuous dependent variables, the study used paired samples t-test and

multivariate tests to measure their competencies with regards to learning without the model

and with the model. On the qualitative analysis, the ordinary (expected) themes explored the

reasons for each of the four components of the model (Cohen, Manion & Morrison; 2011;

Creswell, 2014).

RESULTS

In responding to the research question, are there statistically significant differences in the

professional action competency model, the results in Table 1 and Table 2 adequately

addressed the question.

Table 1: Paired Samples T-Tests of the Competency-Based Model

6
 Paired Differences t df

Std. 95% Confidence Interval of

Components Paired T-Tests
Std. Error the Difference Sig. (2-
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper tailed)

Methodological Teaching without technologies -

-0.778 0.997 0.149 -1.077 -0.478 -5.231 44 0.000
Teaching teaching with technologies

Methods Learning Learning without technologies -

-0.533 0.786 0.117 -0.770 -0.297 -4.550 44 0.000
learning with technologies

Personal Teaching Teaching without Technologies -

-0.178 1.419 0.212 -0.604 0.248 -0.841 44 0.405
teaching with Technologies

Personal Learning Learning without Technologies -

-0.422 1.215 0.181 -0.787 -0.057 -2.331 44 0.024
Learning with Technologies

Social Teaching Teaching without technologies -

-0.133 0.694 0.103 -0.342 0.075 -1.289 44 0.204
teaching with technologies

Social Learning Learning without technologies -

0-.333 1.087 0.162 -0.660 -0.007 -2.057 44 0.046
learning with technologies

Technical Teaching Teaching without technologies -

-0.778 0.997 0.149 -1.077 -0.478 -5.231 44 0.000
teaching with technologies

Technical Learning Learning without technologies -

-0.533 0.786 0.117 -0.770 -0.297 -4.550 44 0.000
learning with technologies

Table 1 shows the paired-samples t-tests used to compare the competency-based model in

didactical conceptual structures required to extend the triad to the tetrahedron. There were

generally statistically significant improvements from teaching and learning without the

competency-based model to teaching and learning with model except personal and social

teachings [M=-0.178, p=0.0.405; M=-0.133, p=0.204].

Table 2: Multivariate Tests of the Competency-Based Model

7
 Effects Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.

Gender Pillais Trace 0.069 0.296 3.000 12.000 0.827

Wilks Lambda 0.931 0.296 3.000 12.000 0.827

Hotelling's Trace 0.074 0.296 3.000 12.000 0.827

Roy's Largest Root 0.074 0.296 3.000 12.000 0.827

Computer Experience Pillai's Trace 1.031 2.445 9.000 42.000 0.024

Wilks' Lambda 0.096 5.296 9.000 29.355 0.000

Hotelling's Trace 8.131 9.637 9.000 32.000 0.000

Roy's Largest Root 7.965 37.168 3.000 14.000 0.000

Level of student Pillai's Trace 0.916 3.665 6.000 26.000 0.009

Wilks' Lambda 0.227 4.387 6.000 24.000 0.004

Hotelling's Trace 2.764 5.068 6.000 22.000 0.002

Roy's Largest Root 2.513 10.888b 3.000 13.000 0.001

Number of Days Pillai's Trace 2.190 3.440 33.000 42.000 0.000

Wilks' Lambda 0.005 5.347 33.000 36.058 0.000

Hotellings Trace 28.302 9.148 33.000 32.000 0.000

Roy's Largest Root 24.724 31.467 11.000 14.000 0.000

In Table 2, the multivariate tests of the competency-based model showed positive effects on

all the independent variables except gender (p=0.827). However, the number of days student

teachers required was the most significant, seconded by computer experience and then the

levels of student teachers. Thus, while there were significant improvements on the number of

days, computer experience and levels of student teachers, there were no noticeable

improvements based on the gender of student teachers.

In responding to the research question on why the professional action competence model

improved learning, descriptive accounts of categorising and classifying the substantive

content and dimensions of the competency-based model were summarized into a qualitative

table (see Table 3). The data generated descriptions that are conceptually cogent, reflective

and revealing of the main thematic areas of methodological, personal, social and technical

competencies of the student teachers in teaching and learning without and with technologies.

8
Table 3: Weightings of Student Teachers in the Competency-Based Model

Components Most Very Average Below average

Competent Competent Competence Competence
Methodological 35% 30% 20% 15%
Personal 10% 20% 30%% 40%
Social 15% 15% 25%% 45%
Technical 30% 35% 25% 10%

In weightings the student teachers competencies based on the professional action

competence model, we discovered that under methodological competence, 35% solved the

problems with most competence and only 15% were below the average competence. Under

personal competence, only 10% were most competence and as many as 40% were below the

average competence. Under social competence, there were 15% most competence and high

45% below average competence and under technical competence, 30% were most

competence and only 10% below average competence. In making follow-up questions and

prompts for the reasons of higher competencies in methodological and technical and least in

personal and social, the student teachers gave the following responses:

1. Methodological is easy, well known and universal in mathematics.

2. Technical can break down formulas and solve them in bits with calculators.

3. Personal is self-centred, not innovative and limited in scope.

4. Social is complex, time consuming and long arguments.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The tests of significances of the quantitative data indicate that the professional action

competence model is very effective tools for facilitating construction of teaching and learning

in conic sections. The design and exploration of the model within the theory of instrumental

genesis enabled student teachers to gain deeper competencies and skills into the didactical

conceptual structures in extending the triad to the tetrahedron with applications in conic

9
sections. For instance, the model improves methodological and technical competencies while

frowns upon personal and social competencies in solving mathematics problems. Technical

competencies were the most statistically significant in extending the conceptual structures to

embrace digital technology tools in classroom instructions (Ali, Davis & Agyei, 2017). This

means the student teachers utilized the technical component more by constructing and

consolidating their knowledge, competencies and skills in digital technology tools (i.e.

calculators) that resulted into the improvements in their learning outcomes.

It must be noted that this paper reports on parts of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in

Mathematics Education degree research work that is still in progress. The meaning and usage

of the professional action competency model have been dynamic and challenging in the

teaching and learning of mathematics at all levels of education. That is why it is continuously

being re-examined, revised and remodelled across time and space. Therefore, based on the

findings and feedbacks from this pilot study, the model would be redesigned and re-

experimented with much more wider content, population and samples as more insights are

derived from literature and the scope of theories governing professional action competency

frameworks in teaching and learning Conic Sections in general.

REFERENCES

Ali, C.A. & Akayuure, P. (2014). Mathematics as a Tool for Enhancing Competitiveness and
Employability of Vocational Training Institutions in Ghana. International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Development, Education And Science Research, 2(1)190-200.

Ali, C.A., Davis, E.K. & Agyei, D.D. (2017). 4T Models of Anthropological Moments of
Didactical Praxeologies in the Parabola with Digital Technologies. Proceedings of
Innovative and Creative Education and Technology International Conference in
Badajoz, Spain from 21st 23rd June 2017.

Bartolini Bussi, M.G. & Mariotti, M.A. (2008). Semiotic mediation in the mathematics
classroom Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective.

10
Billington, M. (2010). Establishing Didactical Praxeologies: Teachers Using Digital
Tools in Upper Secondary Mathematics Classrooms. Working Group 7,
Proceedings of CERME 6, January 28th-February 1st 2009, Lyon France.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education (6ed).
New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach (4ed). Washington DC: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Drijvers, P., & Trouche, L. (2008). From artifacts to instruments: A theoretical framework
behind the orchestra metaphor. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on
technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Vol. 2. Cases and perspectives
(pp. 363-392). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Fiorani, H. (2012). Teaching and Learning Process in Mathematical Education: a

Vygostkian approach. Comenius Assistant Greenleaf Primary School, London.

Hellwig, S. (2005). The competency debate in Germany vet research: implications for
learning processes based on vocationalism. Konstan: University of Konstan.

Hirsch, C. (2014). Transition to college mathematics and statistics: A problem-based,

technology-rich capstone course for non-STEM students. Building digital curriculum
for middle school using challenges, projects and tools.

Leung, A., Chan, Y.C & Lopez-Real, F. (2006). Instrumental Genesis in Dynamic
Geometry Environments.

Lewis, J. (2015). Participatory Archives and Technological Mediation: A RGS Approach to

understanding Tool Use in Digital Environments. University of Nevada Reno,
(Published December 6, 2015).

Mariotti, M.A. & Maracci, M. (2009). Chapter 5: Artefact as Tool of Semiotic Mediation, A
Resource for the Teacher. Department of Mathematics and CSCI, University of Siena.

Maschietto, M. & Trouche, L. (2011). Mathematics learning and tools from theoretical,
historical and practical points of view: the productive notion of mathematics
laboratories.

Sabra, H., Emprin, F., Connan, P.Y. & Jourdain, C. (2014). Classroom Simulator, a new
instrument for teacher training. Challenges and possibilities. ZDMThe International
Journal on Mathematics Education,40(2), 317-327.

Tippelt, R. & Amoros, A. (2003). Competency-based trainingcompilation of seminar

subject matter: training the trainers. Bildung: InWent Capacity Building
International. retrieved from July 21, 2017 from
http:///wdae.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1_competency_based_training.pdf.

11
Tippelt, R. & Amoros, A. (2016). Competency-based trainingcompilation of seminar
subject matter: training the trainers. Bildung: InWent Capacity Building
International. retrieved from July 21, 2017 from
http:///wdae.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/1_competency_based_training.pdf.

Trouche, L. (2014). Instrumentation in mathematics education. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Radford, L., & Sabena, C. (2015). The question of method in a Vygotskian semiotic
approach. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to
qualitative research in mathematics education. New York: Springer.

Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., Drijvers, P., Doorman, M. & Van Zanten, M. (2016).
Reflections from abroad on the Netherlands didactic tradition in mathematics
education. Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, Utrecht.

Vu-Minh, C., Boileau, N. & Herbst, P. (2015). An Instrumental Co-Genesis Approach to

Developing an Online Practice-based Environment for Teacher Education. Paper
presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education, March 2015, Las Vegas, NV.

12